User talk:Netzhack - Revision history

Netzhack: /* Cloak of protection */

2026-07-13T09:57:20Z

‎Cloak of protection

Umbire the Phantom: /* Cloak of protection */ reply

2026-07-13T09:36:09Z

‎Cloak of protection: reply

Netzhack: /* Cloak of protection */

2026-07-13T09:31:03Z

‎Cloak of protection

Umbire the Phantom: /* Cloak of protection */ new section

2026-07-12T18:13:56Z

‎Cloak of protection: new section

Netzhack: /* Respectively */ to/too

2024-08-28T12:01:45Z

‎Respectively: to/too

Netzhack: /* Respectively */ too

2024-08-28T12:01:21Z

‎Respectively: too

Netzhack: /* Just dropping by */

2024-08-28T11:58:54Z

‎Just dropping by

Umbire the Phantom: /* Just dropping by */ new section

2024-08-28T10:23:47Z

‎Just dropping by: new section

Netzhack: /* Respectively */

2023-02-13T22:01:13Z

‎Respectively

Netzhack: Added

2023-02-13T21:54:27Z

Added

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 I have mostly no problem with the verb selection here, just dropping in to inform you that it was initially written that way because of how the armor for [[player monster]]s is generated (rolling the initial armor first and then rolling for replacements&mdash;though you might've guessed already, in which case this is for anyone else reading). I was just wondering what other verbs would work as well as or better than "having" in that particular instance. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom|talk]]) 18:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
-:Thanks for the comment. I agree that my change is not optimal! I realize where the "force" comes from – I'm pretty familiar with the source code (up to 3.6). I'm just thinking that the Wiki ought to reflect a player's perspective rather than a code diver's. And the order of the handling of cases in such code is so arbitrary – "forcing" wastes a few cycles in the forced cases but saves a goto (or a jump over a long conditional block, same thing) in the majority cases – but every comparison creates a jump in the machine language anyway, so the "force" sequence is just an artifact of human-readable style. Anyway, I will take this as encouragement to think about the diction and come up with a better verb or two. -- [[User:Netzhack|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack|talk]]) 09:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
+:Thanks for the comment. I agree that my change is not optimal! I realize where the "force" comes from – I'm pretty familiar with the source code (up to 3.6). I'm just thinking that the Wiki ought to reflect a player's perspective rather than a code diver's. And the order of the handling of cases in such code is so arbitrary – "forcing" wastes a few cycles in the forced cases but saves a goto (or a jump over a long conditional block, same thing) in the majority cases – but every comparison creates a jump in the machine language anyway – and the optimizer may move the check for the force condition up above the randomizer block anyway – so the "force" sequence is just an artifact of human-readable style. Anyway, I will take this as encouragement to think about the diction and come up with a better verb or two. -- [[User:Netzhack|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack|talk]]) 09:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
 ::Yeah, 's all good--I'm stuck trying to figure out how to phrase it myself for when I inevitably go over the page and update it to NetHack 5.0.0 the best I can, and I thought I might as well seek your advice on it. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom|talk]]) 09:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:36, 13 July 2026
Line 137:		Line 137:

	:Thanks for the comment. I agree that my change is not optimal! I realize where the "force" comes from – I'm pretty familiar with the source code (up to 3.6). I'm just thinking that the Wiki ought to reflect a player's perspective rather than a code diver's. And the order of the handling of cases in such code is so arbitrary – "forcing" wastes a few cycles in the forced cases but saves a goto (or a jump over a long conditional block, same thing) in the majority cases – but every comparison creates a jump in the machine language anyway, so the "force" sequence is just an artifact of human-readable style. Anyway, I will take this as encouragement to think about the diction and come up with a better verb or two. -- [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 09:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)		:Thanks for the comment. I agree that my change is not optimal! I realize where the "force" comes from – I'm pretty familiar with the source code (up to 3.6). I'm just thinking that the Wiki ought to reflect a player's perspective rather than a code diver's. And the order of the handling of cases in such code is so arbitrary – "forcing" wastes a few cycles in the forced cases but saves a goto (or a jump over a long conditional block, same thing) in the majority cases – but every comparison creates a jump in the machine language anyway, so the "force" sequence is just an artifact of human-readable style. Anyway, I will take this as encouragement to think about the diction and come up with a better verb or two. -- [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 09:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Yeah, 's all good--I'm stuck trying to figure out how to phrase it myself for when I inevitably go over the page and update it to NetHack 5.0.0 the best I can, and I thought I might as well seek your advice on it. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 09:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:31, 13 July 2026
Line 135:		Line 135:

	I have mostly no problem with the verb selection here, just dropping in to inform you that it was initially written that way because of how the armor for [[player monster]]s is generated (rolling the initial armor first and then rolling for replacements—though you might've guessed already, in which case this is for anyone else reading). I was just wondering what other verbs would work as well as or better than "having" in that particular instance. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 18:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)		I have mostly no problem with the verb selection here, just dropping in to inform you that it was initially written that way because of how the armor for [[player monster]]s is generated (rolling the initial armor first and then rolling for replacements—though you might've guessed already, in which case this is for anyone else reading). I was just wondering what other verbs would work as well as or better than "having" in that particular instance. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 18:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Thanks for the comment. I agree that my change is not optimal! I realize where the "force" comes from – I'm pretty familiar with the source code (up to 3.6). I'm just thinking that the Wiki ought to reflect a player's perspective rather than a code diver's. And the order of the handling of cases in such code is so arbitrary – "forcing" wastes a few cycles in the forced cases but saves a goto (or a jump over a long conditional block, same thing) in the majority cases – but every comparison creates a jump in the machine language anyway, so the "force" sequence is just an artifact of human-readable style. Anyway, I will take this as encouragement to think about the diction and come up with a better verb or two. -- [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 09:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:13, 12 July 2026
Line 131:		Line 131:

	: Thank you! :-D [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 11:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)		: Thank you! :-D [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 11:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	== [[Special:Diff/206368\|Cloak of protection]] ==
		+
		+	I have mostly no problem with the verb selection here, just dropping in to inform you that it was initially written that way because of how the armor for [[player monster]]s is generated (rolling the initial armor first and then rolling for replacements—though you might've guessed already, in which case this is for anyone else reading). I was just wondering what other verbs would work as well as or better than "having" in that particular instance. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 18:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 == Respectively ==
-You're here because you've noticed I'm editing out many (not all) instances of the word "respectively" in this wiki. Here's why: The word "respectively" asks the reader to do the writer's work, mentally forming one-to-one relations between the elements of one set and those of another, where the writer has been to lazy too do so by means of normal sentence syntax. Sometimes the job is easy enough; sometimes it is a difficult mental task; sometimes it has already been done by semantics or other means. Examples:
+You're here because you've noticed I'm editing out many (not all) instances of the word "respectively" in this wiki. Here's why: The word "respectively" asks the reader to do the writer's work, mentally forming one-to-one relations between the elements of one set and those of another, where the writer has been too lazy to do so by means of normal sentence syntax. Sometimes the job is easy enough; sometimes it is a difficult mental task; sometimes it has already been done by semantics or other means. Examples:
 Easy:

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:58, 28 August 2024
Line 129:		Line 129:

	...to say thanks again for all the copyedit and improvements you've provided to this point. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 10:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)		...to say thanks again for all the copyedit and improvements you've provided to this point. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 10:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	: Thank you! :-D [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 11:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:23, 28 August 2024
Line 125:		Line 125:

	::Are you a neurologist, or are you just trying to sound like a jerk? I wouldn't normally bother anyone who misuses "as such"; my interest here is only in raising the standards and the prestige of Nethackwiki. You're welcome to google something like {English grammar "as such"} and read the results for yourself. [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 12:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)		::Are you a neurologist, or are you just trying to sound like a jerk? I wouldn't normally bother anyone who misuses "as such"; my interest here is only in raising the standards and the prestige of Nethackwiki. You're welcome to google something like {English grammar "as such"} and read the results for yourself. [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 12:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Just dropping by ==
		+
		+	...to say thanks again for all the copyedit and improvements you've provided to this point. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 10:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 You're here because you've noticed I'm editing out many (not all) instances of the word "respectively" in this wiki. Here's why: The word "respectively" asks the reader to do the writer's work, mentally forming one-to-one relations between the elements of one set and those of another, where the writer has been to lazy to do so by means of normal sentence syntax. Sometimes the job is easy enough; sometimes it is a difficult mental task; sometimes it has already been done by semantics or other means. Examples:
- Easy: "Food A is lighter than B or C, which weigh 200 and 300 respectively."
+Easy:
 Here, "respectively" saves us writing a new clause containing repetitions of "B" and "C".
- Lazy: "Garnets and rubies are deep red and ruby, respectively."
+Lazy:
 What excuse is there for not writing "Garnets are deep red and rubies are ruby-colored"?
- Too hard: "The Magic Mirror of Merlin and The Master Key of Thievery, the knight and rogue quest artifacts respectively, give you a rumor when applied or wielded."
+Too hard:
 The reader has to parse a sequence of many nouns and figure out where the double-apposition started and ended. Easier to read: "The quest artifacts for the knight and rogue roles, the Magic Mirror of Merlin and the Master Key of Thievery, both give a rumor when applied or wielded." Without the "respectively", we don't tell the reader to mentally form a one-to-one relation, because it's irrelevant here.
- Silly: "The plasteel helmet, boots, and gloves might be useful to Jedi as an upgrade on a dwarvish iron helm, iron shoes or high boots, and leather gloves, respectively."
+Silly:
 This "respectively" is for readers with no semantic understanding of what they're reading. The nouns themselves create a one-to-one relation between the elements in the lists; there is zero danger of a reader misassociating them.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 13 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Every once in a while I get into a peeve about some piece of English syntax and go on an editing campaign. Here are some rationales. (You can still use my talk page for other stuff; feel free to add a section.)		Every once in a while I get into a peeve about some piece of English syntax and go on an editing campaign. Here are some rationales. (You can still use my talk page for other stuff; feel free to add a section.)
		+
		+	Oh – also I'm one of the developers of [http://www.netzhack.de/ NetzHack] (note the 'z'), the [[NetHack_in_other_languages#German\|German localized version]] of NetHack. You can talk to me about that too.

	== "chance to" = opportunity; "chance of" = probability ==		== "chance to" = opportunity; "chance of" = probability ==